Newspaper Page Text
THE GEORGIA CITIZEN.
UNION NOMINATION,
FOR GOVERNOR,
HON. HOWELL COBB,
OF CLARKE.
UxNIONCONGRESSIOXAL CANDIDATES.
FIRST DISTRICT.
CHARLES H. HOPKINS,
OF M’INTOSH.
SECOND DISTRICT.
JAMES JOHNSON,
OF MUSCOGEE.
THIRD DISTRICT.
ABSALOM 0. CHAPPELL,
OF 8188.
FOURTH DISTICT.
CHARLES MURPHY,
OF DE KALB.
FIFTH DISTRICT.
E. AY. CHASTAIN,
OF GILMER.
SIXTH DISTRICT
JUNIUS HILLYEII,
OF WALTON.
SEVENTH DISTRICT
IION. A. 11. STEPHENS,
OF TALLIN FERRO.
EIGHTH DISTRICT.
ROBERT TOOMBS,
OF WILKES.
rnion Senatorial Nominations.
Districts. Counties. Nominees.
6th. Montgomery and Appling, John Mcßae,
10th. Laurens and Wilkinson, James Ross,
10th. Harris and Troup, David Road,
17th. Houston and Pulaski, Hugh Lawson,
26th. Monroe and Bibb, S. W. Burney,
32nd. Butts and Pike, N. B. Johnson,
40th. Cass and Paulding, Lewis Tumlin,
41st. Cherokee and Cobb, M, G. Slaughter,
*l9th. Sumpter and Dooly, Dr. J .Tomlinson
3d. Mclntosh and Glynn, R Spaulding
7th Bulloch and Scriven, Peter Cone,
Bth Bryan and Effingham, J L McAllister.
9th Burke and Jefferson, P B Connelly.
11th Telfair and Irwin, Geo. Wilcox.
12th Decatur and Thomas, .] P Dickinson.
13th Early and Randolph, R L Wolfe.
15th Lee and Baker, R Rieves.
18th Talbot and Merriwether, WN L Crocker.
34th Greene and Morgan, N G Foster.
35th M illies and Lincoln, B B Moore.
31 st Fayette and DeKalb, J M Calhoun.
47th Floyd and Chatooga, J Waters.
14th Muscogee and Stewart, Samuel Flournoy,
44th. Lumpkin and Union, John Butt.
The Banner of Union.
Hold the Union of the States as the basis of
your peace and happiness.—Madison.
In confirmation of the correctness of the
position here assumed, read the following from
the sages of the past:
If the Union is once severed, the line of
separation will grow wider and wider, anti
the controversies which are now debated and
settled in the hall of legislation will then be
tried in fields of battle, and determined by
the sword. —Jackson.
If there be any among you who would wish
to dissolve this Union, or to change its repub
lican form let them stand, undisturbed, as
monuments of the safely with which error of
opinion may be tolerated, when reason is left
free to combat it—Jefferson.
The Unity of our government, which con
stitutes you one people, is also now dear to
you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in
the edifice of your real independence—the
support of your tranquility at home—your
peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity,
of that very liberality which you so highiy
prize.—Washington.
The fourth resolution of the Georgia convention
Df December, 1850, reads as follows :
“Fourthly, That the State of Georgia, in the judg
ment of this convention, will and ought to resist, even
(as a last resort) to a disruption of every tie which binds
her to this Union, any action of Congress, upon the
subject of slavery in the District of Columbia, or in
places subject to the jurisdiction of Congress, incompat
ible with the safety, the domestic tranquility, the rights
and the honor of the slaveholding States, or any act
suppressing the slave trade between slaveholding States,
or any refusal to admit as a State any territory hereaf
ter applying, because of the existence of slavery there
in ; or any act prohibiting the introduction of slaves
into the terrirories of Uuih and New Mexico ; or any
act repealing Or materially modifying the laws now in
force for the recovery of fugitive slaves/’
“ Should, however, the time ever arrive when the
Conditions of her remaining in the confederacy are deg
radation and inequality , I shall be prepared with her
“to resist, with all the means which a favoring Provi
dence may place at her disposal,” even “(ns a last re
sort,) to a disruption of every tie which binds her to the
Union,” any and every power whieh seeks to put upon
her such debasing terms. Nor am I particular by what
name this resistance may be characterized—whether
accession, revolution, or any thing else—for no one can
for a moment doubt, that should this fearful collision
come, the issue will be decided only by the arbitrament
of the sword. Where constitutions end, revolutions be
gin.”—Hotcell Cobb.
The Banner of Disunion.
1. Secession. —The rightful remedy.
2. Disunion, with or without Co-operation—
The only remedy lor an insulted State against
Federal Tyranny.
3. “Loyalty to the Union, is treason to
Liberty.”
4. Separate Secession—Our right and our
remedy—Co-operation but the inevitable
consequence.
5. Ex-Gov. McDonald—HlS CAUSE. OUK
CAUSE; SUCCESS TO HIM AND AN
NIHILATION TO HIS FOES.
“For our own part we are for secession—for
resistance, open, unqualified ‘resistance.’ ‘The
argument being exhausted we must stand
to our arms.’ ’ — Macon , ( Ga.) Telegraph.
‘We abandon the Union its an engine of in
fr.mous oppression. We are for secession,
epen, unqaliied, naked secession. Hence*
foith we are for war upon the government; it
has existed but for our ruiu, and to the extent of
our ability to destroy it, it shall exist no long
er.’— Columbus (Ga.) Sentinel.
‘ It will then, there can be no alternative, de
termine upon resistance. * * It may be
that the Convention will decide upon separate
K
action by the State, in other words, immediate
secession.’— Milledgeville (Ga.) Federal Union.
‘ Our own first choice will be for secession,
and our votes and efforts will be steadily given to
effect that end. * * * We go then
for secession— quietly, if let alone, forcibly if
made necessary. * * * The only
effectual remedy the case admits of, is for the
Southern Rates immediately to get out of a
Government, that has not only failed to ■protect
\A\<Ax property but has become the agressive Job
ber of it.— Columbus (Ga.) Times.
‘The deed is done that must inevitably re
sult in a dissolution of the Union at no distant
day.’— Jackson Mississippian.
‘ Ihe deed is done!— The equality of the
Union is destroyed ! * * * * SLAVERY
AND TIIE UNION CANNOT LONG CON
TINUE TO EXIST TOGETHER. The can
non of Northern Abolitionism and Southern
Submission have responded to each other, and
now the alternative is presented to us of resist
ance or submission. We declare for the former,
and never will we bow at the footstool of North
ern power.
‘We recommend State secession; it is a
constitutional, peaceful and safe remedy. *
* * We see but two ways—secession or sub
mission. * * * Let our legislature at
once recall our Senators and Representatives,
and call a State Convention, and let the issue
be presented fairly to the people— secession or
submission.’ —Natchez (Miss.) Free Trader.
‘ We will vote for secession ; get a majority to
vote with US, AND THEN WE WILL SEE WHO WILL
fight.'— Natchez Free Trader.
‘ W e must and will secede from this Union.
Either we must submit to disgrace , and soon
to Abolition, with all its horrors, or we must
prevent it. There is but one way to prevent it,
and that is by secession. — Woodville (Miss.)
Republican.
‘ I am not appalled by the cry of disunion.’
‘There are things more terrible to me than the
phantom of disunion.’ ‘lf the demands here
set forth be denied, and that denial manifested
by any act of the General Government, we ought
forthwith to dissolve all political connection with
the Northern States.’— Hon. A. G. Brown,
‘■ Resolved, If we have to choose between
submission to these acts, [the compromise acts]
and secession, we prefer the latter.—ll. Barton.
‘ If we cannot obtain concessions in Califor
nia South of 30. 30., and amendments to the
Constitution , I do not hesitate to express it my
decided opinion, that prompt and peaceable se
cession is the only remedy for the aggrieved
States.— Quitman.
Mr. Riiett said in his disunion speech at
Fort Moultrie:—“The prospects, however, are
cheering. Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi
are coming. QUITMAN and McDONALD
are blowing a bugle in the Wesl, which will
be heard in the extremities of Yankeedom.
He did not dread the RESULT; the CAUSE
was good, and nothing would tempt the North
to oppose it but internal ditisons.”
From the Athens Banner.
Mr. Cobb’s Reply to the Jlacon Com
mittee.
Athens, Aug. 12, 1851.
Gentlemen :—I dul not receive your letter un
til my return from the lower part of the State
about the first of the present month, and have
not therefore, replied to it, at an earlier day.
As I have received communications from oth
er parts of the State, on the same, and kindred
subjects, [ have dete ined in this replv, to
consider the questions volved at some length,
as I desire that it may b onsidored as respon
sive to the various communications to which 1
have referred.
Your letter propounds the two following in
terrogatories :
Ist. “ Do you believe that a State by virtue
of her sovereignty, has the right peaceably to
secede from the Union, or is it your opinion,
that the general government has the Constitu
tional authority to coerce her to remain in the
Union ? And should a call be made upon the
militia to aid in attempting to coerce a seced
ing State, would you,if in the executive office,
obey such requisition ?
2d. “ Do you believe that the late acts of
Congress, termed the ‘‘Compromise,” were con
stitutional, just and equitable ?’*
I shall consider these questions in the inverse
order in which you have proposed them.
In order that I may be distinctly understood,
in reference to the late acts of Congress, term
ed the “ Compromise, ’’ I consider it proper
to make a brief reference to each of the six bills,
which composed that compromise; and shall,
in that way, be enabled to give the most satis
factory answer to your second interrogatory.
The bills establishing territorial governments
for Utah and New Mexico, rest upon a great
constitutional principle, which has always re
ceived the warm and cordial support of south
ern men, and by none advocated with more
zeal, than those now politically associated with
yourselves. That principle-AccorcflJtght of the
people to determine for s..vniseives, whether or
not slavery shall constitute a part of theirsocial
system.” In these bills on the slavery ques
tion, is found this provision—“ And said Terri
tories shall be received into the Union with, or
without slavery, as their constitution may pre
scribe, at the time of their admission.’’ If this
important principle, so long contended for by
the South, and so long resisted by the North,
be now repudiated by the South, then these bills
are obnoxious to the objections urged against
them by the disunionists; but if the South be
content to abide the operation of her own cher
ished doctrines on this subject, then these bills
are in strict conformity with the requirements
of the South, and should be entirely satisfactory
to us. It is too late to talk about the repeal of
the Mexican laws, after the almost unanimous
support by the Representatives of the
South of the Clayton Compromise Bill, which
no more repeal those laws, than the bills we are
now considering; nor were our Representatives
in their advocacy of the Clayton compromise
Bill more united, than were their constituents
in their approval of the votes of those Repre
sentatives. The eight Southern Representatives
who voted against that bill, on the ground, that
they required the repeal of the Mexican laws,
were denounced as traitors to the South, for
making the demand, by those who are now
most noisy in their complaints against South
ern Representatives, for not requiring the repeal
of the Mexican laws. I voted for the Clayton
Compromise Bill, and I was universally sus
tained in Georgia in that vote. AY hy is it, that
I am now condemned for my support of those
bills by the men who then approved of my
course ?
The Clayton Compromise Bill contained no
express guarantee for the admission of slave
States it the people desired it—whilst these
bills pledge thetaitli of the government to ad
mit these territories as States, with, or without
slavery, as the people may determine when
they come to organize their State constitution.
♦These hills receive the support oj a majority of
the Representatives of the South. Your own
Representatives from Georgia, were unanimous
upon the subject. The only violent and decid
ed opposition made to them, proceeded from
the abolitionists and free soilers, who saw in the
provisions to which I have I referred, the repu
diation of their favorite doctrine of congression
al interdiction of slavery in the territories, and
the recognition of ourowu favorite doctrine, of
leaving to the people the decision of the question
—whether or not they would have slavery
among them.
The bill to settle the disputed boundary be
tween the U. S. and Texas, rests upon equally
sound and constitutional principles ; its provis
ions simply contain a proposition from the Gen
eral Government to the State of Texas, to settle
the boundary between she U. S. and the State of
Texas, by adopting a certain line as that boun
dary ; and in consideration that Texas will
yield the claim which she had made to the ced
ed territory, the U. S. agrees to pay her the
sum of ten millions of dollars. There was no
threat—no coercion on the part of Congress to
compel acquiescence in their proposition. It
was a matter for the calm and patriotic judgment
of the people of Texas to determine —and the
terms were agreed to by her, with unparallel
ed unanimity. It is equally true, and unjust
to the brave and patriotic people of Texas to
impute their action on this subject, to the fear
of Federal power, or the equally offensive con
sideration of bribery and corruption. As I
would not tolerate such an imputation upon the
citizens of our own State, under similar circum
stances, I will not indulge in the ungenerous
and unfounded reflection upon the honesty and
integrity of our young and prosperous sister.
This disputed boundary was thus settled be
tween the United States and Texas, in the only
mode, in my judgment, in which such an issue
could ba determined between the General Gov
ernment and a sovereign State of the Union.
I am aware that the charge is sometimes made,
that this bill seized on the slave territory of
Texas, and appropriated it to free soil. Noth
ing could be farther from the truth. The only
direct effect resulting from this measure upon
the slavery question, was to remove the prohi
bition upon slaver} in that portion of the ceded
territory, being above 36 30, which was put up
on it in the articles of annexation, when Texas
was admitted into the Union. This bill removes
that prohibition, and submits to the decision of
the people of the territory when they come to
organize their State Government—the question
whether or not slavery shall constitute a part of
their social system. This bill, like the others
which I have considered,received the warm and
cordial support of a majority of Southern Repre
sentatives, and encountered its bitterest opposi
tion from the freesoil Representatives of the
North.
The only remaing bill affecting our territo
rial acquisition, was the one for the admission of
California as a State into the Union. This
measure was objectionable to Southern men,
though it finally received the support of nearly
one-third of the Representatives of the South.
In common with a majority of the South, I en
tertained objection to this bill; I preferred that
a territorial government should have been pro
vided for California, as was done for Utah and
New Mexico. It would have been the more
regular and appropriate mode of disposing of
that portion of the territory; but the failure
to do so. I do not regard as a violation of the
constitution, or the rights of the South. In the
admission of California, Congress exercised a
power expressly conferred upon it, by the con
stilution, “to admit new States into the Union;”
and though our judgments do not wholly ap
prove of the exercise of that discretionary pow
er in this instance, it constitutes no such cause of
complaint against the government, as would jus
tify the resistance which lias been indicated by
the enemies of the Compromise and the advo
cates of disunion.
The principle upon which California was ad
mitted into the Union, with her constitution
prohibiting slavery, lias ever received the sanc
tion of Southern statesmen. That principle de
nies to Congress the right to look into the con
stitution of a State asking for her admission into
tbe Union, farther than to see that it is repub
lican in its form of government. Whether
slavery shall exist there is a question, not for
tbe consideration of Congress, but to be deter
mined by the people when they frame their
State constitution.
The doctrine was clearly expressed in the fol
lowing resolution, introduced by Mr. Oallioim
into the Senate of tbe United States, in 1847.
It was the annunciation of a sound constitution
al principle, and I am prepared to maintain its
correctness :
“Resolved , That as a fundamental principle in our
political creed, a people, in forming a constitution,
have the unconditional right to form and adopt the
government which they may think best calculated to
secure liberty, prosperity and happiness, and that in
conformity thereto, no other condition is imposed by
the federal constitution on a State, in order to her ad
mission into this Union except that its constitution be
republican, and that the imposition of any oilier by
Congress would not only be in violation of the consti
tution, but in direct conflict with the principle on which
our political system rests.’’
The bill for the suppression of the slave trade
in the District of Columbia, was objected to
by Southern men, principally on the ground of
the penalty which it provides. That feature is
taken from the laws of Maryland, and it will be
remembered, that all that now remains <>f the 1
district, was orig nally a part of the State of
Maryland. In 1810 the State of Georgia pro
hibited the introduction of slaves within this
State for sale, under a penalty of a fine of five
hundred dollars, and imprisonment in the peni
tentiary for four years, for each slave brought
into the State for sale. This law was repealed
in 1842, and re-enacted in 1843, and again re
pealed at tbe session of 1849. The penalty for
the violation of the District law is the liberation
of the slave; which is, as I have said, the same
penalty provided by the Maryland law for a vio
lation of their Act upon tbe same subject. There
was, as far as I could learn, but one voice among
the people in the district on this subject. They
all desired it.
The Fugitive Slave Bill, is the only remain
ing measure of the compromise to be consider
ed. I wish it was practicable, without extend
ing this communication to too great a length,
to incorporate into it. the leading provisions of
the bill. It must suffice, however, to state, that
it was prepared by one of the most extreme ad
vocates of Southern Rights in Congress. It con
tains every principle that was demanded by
the South, and I have yet to meet with the first
man who claims more at the hands of Congress
on this subject, than this hill grants. Congress
in the adoption of this bill, has, in my judg
ment, exhibited a willingness and determination,
fully to discharge the obligation which the con
stitution imposes for the delivery of our fugi
tive slaves.
I have now rapidly referred to each of the
compromise measures, and you will see, that
whilst in the language of the Georgia Conven
tion, 1 do not wholly approve of all these meas
ures, yet I see in them no violation of our con
stitutional rights—nor is there, in my opinion,
anything which forbids on the part of our peo
ple, an honorable acquiescence in the measures.
Such was the decission of the people of this
State last fall, as recorded by their delegates in
the convention of last November. If I did not
regard the settlement as fair and honorable, I
would not he found among the advocates of the
Georgia Platform. It is not simply because
Georgia has decided the question, that I main
tain her decision—hut because she has made a
wise, just and patriotic decision. If l thought
that Georgia had made a decision which sub
jected her citizens to terms of inequality and
degradation, I would, as a loyal citizen, submit
to her will, until I could induce her, if in my
power, to abandon so humiliating a position; and
such, I presume, is the position of every honor
able nian within her limits ; it is, therefore,
right and proper, that the people should know
not only, who will submit to the decision of the
•State, but also, who approves and will sustain
that decision.
Your first interrogatory, directs my atten
tion to the question of secession, and you have
put the issue upon the right of a State to secede
from the L n;on without just cause. As this
right is claimed bv many as a constitutional
right, and by all of those who advocate it in its
modern acceptation, as consistent with consti
tutional obligations, I shall consider it at some
length iu reference to its constitutional bear
ings.
W hen asked to concede the right of a State to secede
at pleasure from the Union, with or without just cause,
we are called upon to admit that the framers of the
constitution did that which was never done by any
other people, possessed of their good sense and intelli
gence—that is to provide in the very organization of
the government for its own dissolution. It seems to
me, that such a course would not only have been an
anomalous proceeding—but wholly inconsistent with
the wisdom and sound judgment which marked thede.
liberations of those wise and good men, who framed our
Federal government. Whilst I freely admit that such
an opinion is entertained by many, for whose judgment
1 entertain the highest respect, I have no hesitation in
declaring that the convictions of my own judgment are
well settled, that no such principle was contemplated in
the adoption ofour constituiion, to subject the perpetui
ty of the Union to the will, and indeed, I may add, the
caprice of each State, it is a most remarkable fact, that
a principle of such vast importance, involving the very
existence of the republic, should have been left an open
question, to he decided by inferences and metaphysical
deductions of the most complicated character. When
one rises from a carelul study of the constitution of the
United States, ho feels impressed with its wonderful
adaptation to the wants and interests of this growing
people. Not only does he find wise and judicious pro
visions and guarantees for the state of the country as it
then existed, but with prophetic wisdom its framers
seem to have penetrated the future, accommodating the
government to the necessities and requirements of its
present increased population and extended resources. 1
am not prepared to admit that the men who exhibited
so much care and foresight in reference to all the va
rious parts of this complicated machine—would have
left to vague the existence of tbe important
arul vital poivcr now claimed for each State, of dissolv
ing at pleasure, the Union which had costs them and
their compatriots much toil, and labor, and anxiety. If
they had intended to provide for the destruction of that
noble structure, whieh they were then erecting with all
the care and wisdom of able statesmen and devoted pa
triots, by such simple and obvious means, as the with
drawal of any State from the confederacy—they would
have manifested their intention by some plain and pal
pable provision of the constitution. Such a course
would have been characteristic of the honest practical
and enlightened statesmen of the convention. Their
failure to do so carries the stiongest conviction to my
mind, that no such principle was recognized by them.
In connection with this view of the subject, the inqui
ry forces itself upon our minds, if each State reserved
the right to withdraw at pleasure from the Union, why
was there so much difficulty encountered by the friends
of the constituiion in obtaining its ratification by tbe
different States ? There were few, if any, who were
opposed to the formation of the Union, after the consti
tution hud been submitted to the States for ratification,
provided they could engraft certain amendments upon
it. The policy of adopting the constitution, on condi
tion that these amendments should be acceded to, was
urged with great earnestness in the conventions, and
among the people of several of the States, hut was final
ly abandoned on the ground that it would boa condi
tional ratification, and therefore inadmissible. Un
this point I must refer to the opinion expressed by Mr.
Madison, who has been called “ the father of the
constitution ,’’ and to whose exposition of that sacred
instrument the republican party have been accustomed
to look with such implicit confidence. Mr. Madison
says:
“ Mv opinion is, that a reservation of a right to
withdraw, if amendments be not decided on under
the form of the constitution within a certain time,
is a conditional ratification ; that it does not make
New York a member of the new Union ; and con
sequently, that she would not he received on that
plan, Compacts must be reciprocal; this princi
ple would not in such a case be preserved, thf.
constitution requires an adoption in toto and
FOREVER.”
If the right was reserved to each State to withdraw,
it would have been an act ofsuperogation on the part of
New York, or any other State, to declare in advance,
llmt she woidJ *' v 11 e t it the amcmlmcn's
she proposed to thllw'-gstitution were not adopted. If
the right existed, it oft.* be exercised as well without
as with the eondii j<, J annexed to her ratification of the
constitution, and the assertion of it would have been a
useless interpolation and a nullity. It was not so re
garded, however, at the time, by those who had been
active participants in the framing of the constitution.
Mr. Madison considered the reservation of a right to
withdraw from the Union as “ a condition that would
vitiate the ratification.” lie says further in writing to
Mr. Hamilton on this subject: “ The idea of reser
ing a right to withdraw was started at Rich
mond, and considered as a conditional ratification, which
was itself abandoned as worse than a rejection.”
If the opinion of Mr. Madison, which I have here re
ferred to, be well founded, it puts an end to this contro
versy. There can bo no doubt about the fact, that he
did not recognize the right of each State to secede from
the Union at pleasure. In addition to the facts which
I have just considered, there is a strong illustration of
the opinion that prevailed among the framers of the
constitution on this subject, in tbe action of the States
of North Carolina and Rhode Island. These States re
fused to come iuio the Union lor some time after the
ratification of the constitution. They were not opposed
to the formation of the Federal Union, but like some of
the other States, they were unwilling to adopt the con
stitution as it then stood. If it had been a recognized
and undoubted principle that each State was bound to
remain in the Union, only so long as it suited its own
convenience, no one doubts that these States, instead of
withholding their assent from the constitution, after it
had been adopted by the requisite number, would have
come at once into the LTiion, with the intention of im
mediately withdrawing from it, upon the refusal of the
other States to adopt such amendments as they desired,
but regarding the effect of their ratification of the con
stitution in an entirely different light, from the seces
siouists of the present day, they adopted quite a different
policy. So far as we can gather light and information
from the opinions and actions of the men who framed
and adopted the constitution, it all goes to strengthen
and confirm the conviction I have already expressed
against tiie existence of any such right.
The political history of the country from the time of
the Declaration of Independence to the adoption of the
constitution, is confirmatory of the correctness of the
opinion I have expressed. In the original articles of
confederation, it is more than once declared that the
subject was to form a perpetual Union. Those arti
cles of confederation were found too weak, and ineffi
cient, to carry out the great purposes of the people in
the establishment of a general government, and hence it
was, that in its language, was the present constitution
adopted for the purpose of forming “a moiuc perfect
union.’ It would be a reflection, both upon the integ
rity and wisdom of the framers of the constitution to
say, that they abandoned “ a perpetual Union ” to
form a more a more perfect one, and in doing so,
adopted a temporary , conditional Union. Such,
however, is the construction placed by the secessionist
upon the action of those great and good men, to whoso
energy, wisaom, and patriotism, we are indebted for
our present noble and glorious Union.
Tbe policy ofour government during its whole exis
tence, is no where impressed either upon its domestic
or foreign policy. It lias for more than half a century
pursued the even tenor of its way, growing in strength
and increasing in usefulness, taking deeper and deeper
hold upon the hearts and affections of the people ; illus
trating the great American principle of free govern
ment, and reflecting upon its inspired founders the
highest and brightest honors. Whilst Ido not pro
pose to illustrate these views by a detailed review of the
action of the government, I cannot forbear to refer to
one portion of our history, which is strongly corrobora
tive of the correctness of the position I have assumed.
When the people of the United States determined up
on the purchase of tho Louisiana territory, and effected
that desirable object at the cost ofa considerable amount
of money, aud by the exercise of a questionable consti
tutional power, it will not be said, that they did so for
the benefit of those who then inhabited the country, nor
indeed for those who might subsequently remove there.
They were prompted to the acquisition of that vast and
valuable territory by considerations of public polioy, af
fecting their interests and welfare as citizens of the va
rious States of the Union. The commercial and milita
ry advantages to the United States, from the possession
of that country, were so great and important, that its
acquisition was considered almost an act of self-protec
tion. AY ill it now be said that the people of Louisiana,
possess the right to deprive the remaining States of the
Union, of all the interests and advantages which they
have bought and paid for, out of their own treasury,
by withdrawing or seceding from the Union at will ?
Louisiana is as free, sovereign, and independent as
any other State of the Union, and if this right exist in
any one State, it exists in all, without reference to the
mode by which the territory was acquired, out of
which the State is formed. 1 apprehend that the peo
ple of the U nited States did not for a moment enter
tain the idea, that in admitting Louisiana into the
Union, they had thus perilled all the advantages of that
important acquisition, by placing it in the power of a
single State to deprive the Union of commercial and
military advantages and resources, of inestimable value,
purchased by the joint treasure of all the States, and
now held by them as beyond the rcaeh of any price or
consideration that coaid be offered in exchange for
them. These remarks apply with equal force to all the
territorial acquisitions made by the United States,
where States have been or may hereafter be formed and
admitted into ihe Union, and the same principle might
be forcibly illustrated by reference to the action of the
government on subjects of a kindred character, but it
cannot be necessary and I will not extend this view to
any greater length.
AN lien the right of a State to secede from the Union
at will is conceded, we have put the existence of the
government at the disposal of each State in the Union.
The withdrawal of one, is a dissolution of the compact
which holds the States together; it is no longer the
Union that tire constitution formed, and the remain ng
States are absolved from all moral obligation to abide
longer by their compact. I say moral obligation, be
cause the argument of the secessionists denies the ex
istence of any binding legal obligation By admitting
the doctrine of the secessionists, we#r,re brought to the
conclusion, that our Federal Government, the pride and
boast of every American patriot, the wonder and admi
ration of the civilized world, is nothing more than a vol
untary association ; temporary in its character, weak
and imbecile in the exercise of its powers, incapable of
self-preservation, claiming from its citizens allegiance,
and demanding annual tribute from their treasure —and
yet, destitute of the power of protecting their rights or
preserving their liberties. If this be the true theory of
our government, what is the constitution of the United
State, that we should estimate it so high ? Where is
its binding force, that we should hold to its provisions
with such unyielding tenacity? Individuals cannot violate
their compacts, or set aside at pleasure their mutual ob
ligations, without the assent of the other parties. Na
tions cannot recklessly disregard their treaty stipula
tions, without incurring the consequences of violated
faith. But our constitution, the revered monument of
revolutionary patriotism and wisdom, which we have
been taught to regard with reverential feeling, is doom
ed to fall below the standard of national treaties, and
individual contracts. It has formed a Union founded
upon mutual sacrifices and concessions—made by the
several component parts for the greater benefits to be
derived by each, from the combined co-operation of all
—and now we are told that there is no obligation to
observe that Union, beyond the pleasure of the parties to
it—and that the constitution can be annulled by the
act of any State in the confederacy.
I do not so understand our government. I feel that I
owe my allegiance to a government, possessed of more
vitality and strength, than that which is drawn from
a voluntary obedience to its laws. I hold that no
government is entitled to my allegiance, that does not
pass just and wise laws, and does not possess the power
to enforce and execute them.
I am ful'y aware of the fact that the effort is now be
ing made to render the denial of the right of a State to
dissolve the Union, odious in the public estimation, by
presenting to the public mind, in connection with it, a
frigliful picture of an armed soldiery and a military des
potism. I have no fours of the judgment that our en
lightened countrymen will pass on this controversy —
au<l surely 1 could not complain of any consequence
that should result from my avowal of doctrines which
I have imbibed from the teachings of Mr. Madison, Gen.
Jackson, Judge Crawford, and their republican asso
eiutc-s. It dous not follow, however, as a necesfptry
consequence of the principles which I have laid jjfnvn,
that military coercion is to be used against a State that
may attempt the exercise of this revolutionary right.
AA’liilst I deny the right of a State to secede, and
thus dissolve the Union, I would not attempt by the
strong arm of military power to bring her citizens back
to their allegiance, unless compelled to do so in defence
of the rights and interests of the remaining States of
the Union. AA T e should not recognize her separate
independence, nor could we allow our own interests to
be periled by sanctioning any alliance she might be dis
posed to make with any foreign government. In our
desire to inflict no injury upon a wandering sister, >ve
should not forget the duty which the government owes
to these who remain firm and true to the>. allegiance,
and whose claims upon its protection and support should
not be lightly regarded. The la—sos self-protection
would require of the hands of the government, that
due regard should be had for the protection of the
rights and interests of -lie other Suites, and to that de
mand it would be bound to respond. If one of the
States should ir a mad hour attempt to secede from
the Union, and the kind and indulgent policy which I
have indicated should be resorted to, I have no doubt
that in a very short time sneh State would feel it to be
both her duty to retrace her wandering steps, and re
turn to the embrace of the sisterhood. This opinion is
founded upon the high estimate which I place upon
the value of the Union to each and all of the States that
compose it. It would require the experience of only
a short absence, to teach the wanderer the benefits and
advantages from which she had voluntarily exiled her
self.
Such are the general views which I entertain on
this subject, and I have freely expressed them. I have
discussed it as a mere abstract question, and in that
light I regard it. Whatever differences of opinion may
exist among the true friends of the Union on the ab
stract question of the right of secession, I apprehend
that when it assumes a practical shape, there would bo
but slight shades of difference as to the policy and ef
fect of our action. There are many who hold to the
doctrine of the right of a State to secede from the Union,
with whom I do not differ practically. They grant the
abstract right of secession, but claim for the remaining
States the right to protect themselves from any inju
rious consequences that might (low from the exercise of
that abstract right by the seceding State. It is only
necessary to state the two propositions to show that, in
the end, the practical operation of their principles
would lead to the same results that I would reach by the
enforcement of the doctrines which I have avowed.
Our difference is theoretical, not practical, and there
fore constitutes no impediment in the way of our cor
dial co-operation.
We all hold that just and wise laws should be en
lorccd and executed, wliilst we arc prepared to oppose
acts of injustice and oppression by all the means in our
power, and to the rupture of every tie that binds us to
any government. No government, however honestly
and wisely administered, can be maintained in the ab
sence of binding obligations on its citizens to obey its
laws, and power to enforce their execution on recusant
parties, lienee, I cannot consent to the doctrine that
our government is destitute of these powers essential to
its vitality and existence. The claim which I have
urged in behalf of the Federal Government cannot be
abandoned without endangering the whole frame-work
of our admirable system—nor is there any serious dan-
ger to be apprehended from its improper exercise. Its
true strength, based upon the existence of these powers,
is to be found in the justice and wisdom of its legisla
tion •, these are the true and only safe avenues to the
hearts and affections of the people, wherein aro found
the strung pillars of support to a free government. I
do not entertain the idea, for a moment, that our gov
ernment can be maintained by the strong arm ofmilitary
power, when it ceases to bestow the blessings upon the
people for which it was formed. Whenever it becomes
the instrument of wrong and oppression to any portion -
of the people, by unjust laws and degrading legislation,
it will cease to be the Union formed by our revolution
ary fathers, and possessing no further claims upon our
allegiance and support, should that period ever unfor
tunately arrive, we will not fail to prove ourselves as
true to the principles of liberty and equal rights as our
honored and venerated fathers ; nor will we 6top to
look to the provisions of a violated constitution for the
mode or measure for the redress of our grievances.
I have so far considered the question in reference to
the doctrine of the constitutional right of a State to se
cede without just cause, at her own will and pleasure,
and I think I have shown that it is unsupported either
by principle or authority. On the other hand, I admit
the right of a State to secede for just causes, to be de
termined by herself. Being a party to the compact,
which the constitution forms, she has the right, which all
other parties to a compact possess, to determine for her
self when, where and how, the provisions of that com
pact have been violated. It is equally clear that the
other parties to the compact possess a corresponding
right to judge for themselves, and there being no com
mon arbiter to decide between them, each must depend
for the justification of their course upon the justice of
their cause, the correctness of tbeir judgment, and their
power and ability to maintain their decision.
Ihe right of a State to secede in case of oppression,
or “a gross and palpable violation” of her constitutional
rights, as derived from the reserved sovereignty of the
States, lam prepared to recognize. In such case, each
State, in the language #f the Kentucky and Virginia
i resolutions of 1798-’ is to be the judge, not only of
the ‘‘infractions,’’ but “ the mode and measure of re
dress.’’ It is the just right of the people to change
■ their form of government when, in their opinion, it has
become tyrannical, in a mode not provided for in the
constitution, and is therefore revolutionary in its charac
ter, and depends for its maintamanee upon the stout
i hearts and strong arms of a free people.
■ In connection with this branch of the subject, a ques
tion arises, which, in the opinien of some, is of consid
erable importance. It is, whether or not the citizens
• of a State thus resuming her sovereign powers would
be liable to the charge of treason in conforming the ac
. quirements of their State government. I refer to this
. particularly only in consideration of the importance at
tached to it by others. From what I h ive said, it will
clearly appear that I hold that they would not be. In
my opinion, no man commits treason who acts in obe
dience to the laws and authorities of a regular organized
government, such as we recognize our state governments
to be.
But there is a question, gentlemen, involved !d your
f interrogatories, which rises in magnitude far above any
which I have yet considered. It involves ib& impor
tant inquiry, whether in the event of a State seceding
from the Union, and the Executive of the U. States
making a requisition of troops to coerce her back, 1, if
elected Governor of Georgia, would obey that requisi
tion. Ibis question may become a practical one—l
sincerely trust it never will. Under the existing laws
of the United States, the President has no power to or
der out the militia to coerce a seceding State. Neither
the Act of 1795 nor the Act of 1807 would apply in
such an emergency. These Acts apply to eases where
individuals, acting without the authority of any State
government, resist, by force, the law’s of the United
States—to riots and insurrections—to such cases as we
w’ere apprehensive a few months since might be mani
fested in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law in por
tions of the Northern States. That this is the true
construction to be placed upon these Acts, will be ap
parent from the conduct of Gen. Jackson in a former
period of our history, when the State of South Carolina
threatened to secede from the Union. lie then found
it necessary to invove the aid of additional legislati jp bv ,
Congress, llis appeal to the then Congress
the passage of the law familiarly known as Force
Billbut that Act being temporary IT> its object and
character, has lost all its vitalitv, M<i long since ceased
to be of force, having expired by ts own limitation. In
the contingency involved in you’question, it would be
necessary that the President, if his views of right and
policy led him to coercion, shoiid asks of Congress ad
ditional legislation, and it would be for them to deter
mined whether or not they wolld grant it. If a State
should secede, and the President should recommmeml to
Congress such legislation anq Congress should grant it.
then your question w ould l-eeome practical, and 1 am
prepared to answer it fuay, freely, and frankly. It
w’ould be the most fearful iue that ever the people of
this country have been e.tJled on to decide since the
days of the revolution—so momentous, so vital to the
interests of the people of Georgia, that I should feel
bound to ascertain the will of the people before I acted.
I should endeavor to be Gie Exccuticc of the will of
the people of Georgia. To ascertain that will, I should
convene the Legislature of the State, an’d recommend
to them to call a conv-ntion of the people, and it would
be for that convention, representing the people upon
that naked issue, to determine whether Georgia would
go out of the Union, and ally herselfand peril her des
tinies with the seceding State, or whether she would re
main in the Uni< *t and abide the fortunes of her other
sisters. And. as Georgia spoke, so would I endeavor, if
lierExecu .ve, to give power and effect to her voice.
But if a collision of arms between the States com
ing >ar glorious confederacy should ever come, it re
quires no prophet to predict the result. The Union
would fall beneath the weight of revolution and blood,
and fall, I fear, to rise no more. It was formed in the
hearts of the American people—it can only be preserv
ed in their hearts. When any very large por
tion of its inhabitants look upon it as oppressing and
degrading them—when they cease revere it as thc
legacy of a revolution, its vitality will be gone, and
empty parchments, though aided by military force, can
never hold it together. Hence, we see the abolitionists
of the North denouncing it as “ a covenant with hell,”
and hence we hear the disunionists of the South inflam
ing the hearts of the people against it, announcing that
they have been degraded and oppressed by it, and pre
paring eventually to overthrow it. They are wise
men, they understand the workings of the human
heart, and they well know that when the heart feels that
wrong, indignity and insult have been heaped upon a
man, unless he bo indeed a craven spirit, a blow will
follow. Frcpare the hearts of the people to hate the
Union of their fathers, and the battle is won—they are
ready to fight against it. Hence, believing as I do, that
the lute compromise is such, in the language of the
Georgia platform, “as she can in honor abide by,’’ I
have used every effort in my power to stay this cease
less and ruinous agitation North and South, and to
keep the constitution and the Union where our fathers
erected them—firmly on the foundation of the people's
hearts.
I am, very respectfully, your ob't serv’t,
HOWELL COBB.
Messrs. John Rutherford, N. Bass, R. A. L. Atkinson
and others.
Correnponltim
Misrepresentation Corrected—Col. Tift
and Mr. Cel>l>.
Albany, Ga. Aug, 15, ISSI.
Editor Citizen: —l find in the Albany‘Patriot’
of the Bth inst. an editorial article in relation to the
discussion in this place, between Col. Tift and Mr.
Cobb, on the 23d of last month, as follows :
“ In our discussion with Mr. Cobb, we read in his
presence, an extract from his Savannah speech, in which
he contended that the compromise was fair, just, and
honorable to the South. We showed that this was
contradicted by the voice of the whole South ; that
the Georgia Convention did not approve of it, and that
many citizens of the Northern States acknowledged
that the South was wronged. We stated, that in this
respect, Mr. Cobb was a stronger advocate of the in
terests of the North than some of her own citizens, and
that if we wanted an advocate of Northern interests,
we should by all means elect Mr. Cobb. Mr. Cobb
rose to reply, trembling with apparently suppressed
rage, and ‘puked up,’ as a listener quaintly remarked,
a torrent of invictive against Noithern-boru men, who
might question the policy, or attempt to counsel any
Southern man.’’
Now Col. Tift knew, when he penned the above, that
he was misrepresenting Mr. Cobb, and I suppose that
he thought sufficient time had elapsed for others to for
get what Mr. Cobb really did say, in reply to his abuse,
on that occasion. In Mr. Cobb's tour through South
Western Georgia, he repeatedly refused to meet per
sons of the opposite party upon the stump for good
and sufficient reasons, which he gave in his letter to a
Committee at Newton, in this county. That Commit
tee in reply to Mr. Cobb, (a Committee of the leading
Southern Rights and McDonald men in this county)
states that if he would meet Col. Tift in discussion,
they would endorse any thing he might say, as the rep
resentative of Mr. McDonald.
Mr. Cobb took the matter into consideration w •
consequence of the assurance given hnn bv ,\’ c *
mittee, and connected with it. the fact of (* o] r
ing the Editor of a paper devoted to McDon.U ,
his party, he concluded to waive the rule he had
on former occasions and give the Col. a chance v***
under the circumstances, I will ask any candy’ °*’
“>■ w.c„i. Tift fZTcz ; f
conduct the discussion in a fair, open, and
ly manner, and have confined himself to the con
ationof the principles involved in the issue
descending to ]o<v personal abuse. At Newton on }
day previous, nothing occurred to mar the good’ fe!r *
existing between the debutants. Every thing wm “fr
as it should do—and the political enemies of Mr. C H,
expressed themselves highly gratified at his dignifi-a
and courteous bearing. At this place, on the folkmi Jl
day, Mr. Cobb opened the discussion in a speech of *
hour, m which he laid down his positions and so f 0^ #
tied them by argument that they could not be over
thrown, by all the sophistry of his opponent and i
did not attempt it. ‘ l *
Now I will defy any one who listened to Mr. Cobb
during that opening speech, to point out the first r* r
sonal reflection upon Col. Tift, or any th ng calculated
to wound the feelings of any of his (Mr. Cobb's) polj t j.
cal opponents. When he spoke of Mr. McDonald he
did so in the most courteous language—he never tpok*
of the Southern Rights party, but as being compo*!
of ‘honorable gentlemen.’ CoU Tift was allowed one
hour and a half to reply. When he arose he was
evidently ‘off of his foot,’ (don’t get scared. Col I
will not tell any thing, but what I can get hundreds of
witnesses to testify to,) he knew that Mr. Cobb's posi
tions were too well fortified for him to assail, success,
folly. He knew he could not overthrow them. Well
what did he do? AA hy he attempted an argument
failed—and then pitched into Mr. Cobb ‘like a thousand
of brick, with a tirade of personal abuse. He open
ed, by saying that Mr. Cobb had taken a great deal of
pains to enlighten the people upon the Compromise
measures, when in reality they were not in the issues.
W e had nothing to do with them. The people of Geer.
gut had, in Convention, decided that they would abid*
by them; and then commenced abusing them, by sav
ing they wore degrading to the South, that they robbed
the South of her right in the territories—that we had
gained nothing by the compromise—that the admis
sion of California was unauthorized by the Constitution.
He repelled with apparent indignation, the idea that he
orany of the Southern lights party were disunion*.
He said that they stood on the ‘Georgia Platform’ they
were the true Union men, and that Mr. Cobb and his
party were the worst enemies to the country—that the
U nion party was formed for the purpose of breaking
down the old Democratic party, that if the Union par
ty had never been formed there would have been none
of this excitement—that Mr. Cobb had deserted the
Democratic party, else why did he oppose Mr. Mc-
Donald who he knew to be a Democrat, and who was
nominated first. He charged Mr. Cobb with being a
lederalist and a Consolidationist. He said he had
proved recreant to the South, while acting as Speaker
of the house, by appointing Abolitionists upon Com
mittees. He classed him with Seward , Giddings
and Hale, and virtually called him an Abolitionist, bt
sides telling the people that if they wanted an advocat*
of Northern interests they should elect Mr. Cobb.
r’ Mr ..Cobb arose to roply in a speech of half an
he ran over the lew arguments which Col. Tift
had undertaken to advance, in his usual courteous man
ner, but when he came to the personal abuse, which
had been heaped upon him by liis opponent, he did
‘tremble,’ with some kind of excitement. lie apolo
gized to the audience for his warmth, said it was con
trary to his feeling and practice to bring personalities
into discussion : but he had heen personally assailed, and
lie would repel it. He appealed to the audience wheth
er he ever had, by any public act proved recreant to
his native State, or to the South! A loud and triumphant
NO! rang out from the assemblage in answer! Ha
said that he was born, and raised at the South, that
lie had always lived at the South—that all his sympa
thies were with the South, ard all his interests wer*
identified with her prosperity; and that thecharg*
made against them of Abolitionism, and being th
advocate of Northern interests came with a very bad
grace ‘from one who had not yet throwuoffhis North
ern swaddling clothes.’ This, Sir, was the head anJ
front of Mr. Cobb’s offending, this was his‘torrent of
invective against Northern born men.’ The plural
number was not used. No reflections were intended
to bo cast upon any one but Col. Tift himself, and 1m
knew it when he wrote the editorial I have quoted.
He wished to prejudice ‘Northern born men’ again**
Mr. Cobb, by making them believe that he said some
thing lie diJ not say. I have quoted almost r ertim
the language used by Mr. Cobb, and I challenge Col.
Tift to deny it. We have ‘Northern born men’ her*,
who listened to the discussion and who believe that Mr.
Cobb served him just right; that he who was born
at the North, educated at the North, whose relations
live at the North, and who has children educating at
the borth, should not charge a native born Georgian,
and a slave holder with being an Abolitionist, without
subjecting himself to the penalty of having his birth
place thrown up to him.
Truly yours. ARISTIDES.
Letter to the Editor.
Fort Early, Dooly Cos. July *29, ISSI.
Dear Citizen : —Governor McDonald, in his letter
of acceptance, says, ‘this day I have received a letter
informing me of my nomination for Governor of Geor
gia, in a Cenvention composed of both Wliigt and
Democrats.’ I have been told a majority composing
tbe Convention were Whigs. AVhy then do so many
ultra Disunion AATiigs swallow this bitter pill of De
mocracy glossed over with pretended friendship to the
Union in the shape of McDonald , who once ruined
our State by his management of onr finances l For
the very reason that the Union AA'higs take down the
Democratic pill Mr. Cobb, because he is a Union man
on the one hand, and Mcdonaid a Disunionlst on the
other. I rejoice that it is not worse with us than it was
on the 25th of November last, notwithstanding the at
tempts being made in various quarters to juggle ns
out of many Democratic Union voters, and thereby to
make the people of Georgia contradict what they said in
November 1850 —by deceiving them into the support of
the friend and ally of the notorious Disunionist of S.
Ca. B. S. Rhett. Gov. McDonald, the Union Disunion
man—who sat in Convention recommending a Southern
Congress , refusing to unite with the sister State* of
one of the happiest republics that ever existed, to
nominate officers who are indispensable and without
whom the Government would cease to exist, is
the patient Submissionist to the imaginary wrong
done us by the General Government, as will be sera
by reference to an article in the Georgia Citizen oftlie
26th July. inst.
In the Southern Rights Disunion Convention of
the 2d Congressional District, only T counties out of
12 were represented, those not represented t* in ?
Union counties; this augurs badly for our opponent*,
in the above district. The old Democrats of Lee, son*
of them tell me that the county will vote largely for
Cobb It has been said by the Fire-Eaters, that Bak
er and Dooly will give two hundred majority each for
McDonald. Well, this is more than any body knows,
for the public mind is unsettled, and the result will de
pend much on whethe r we suffer them to cheat the pee*
pie to believe they are as good Union men as tee, for
these counties are Union to the core if they can g tl
light. Baker is doubtful, though Judge Warren *a>.
signs are favorable. I hear cheering news from sotn®
parts of Dooly, that some of the hot beds of Democ
racy are getting light, and will sustain the Vnion and
her Cobb.
The Federal Union. Georgia Telegraph and Alb*
ny Patriot , are throwing mist over the eyes of oar hon
est people. These papers that praised Mr. Polk for *‘Cn
ing the Oregon Bill, with the proviso to it, and cad Mr
Cobb a traitor for voting for the same hill with a J ll4
jority of the Democrats, South. Mr. Calhoun the ie
der of the Southern Rights party voted for the Cla) tt,n
Compromise Bill, with Cobb and a majority of P
crats South, for which they say Mr. Cobb is a tra
to the South. (See Congressional Journal and a ’
papers, -47-48-49, and -51.) Mr. Cobb voted for
late Compromise, better for the South then any P
vious measure or Compromise, with a ma j or ''b M
Southern Democrats. For this he is denoun
a traitor to the South in company with Stephen-
Tombs, hence a majority of the Democrats .
traitors and ia company with Tombs and Step
Is it not a principle of Democracy that majorities